151. Attitudes about when and how to treat patients with AL amyloidosis: an international survey
- Author
-
Paolo Milani, Morie A. Gertz, Giampaolo Merlini, and Angela Dispenzieri
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Dexamethasone ,Bortezomib ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,First line therapy ,Internal medicine ,Internal Medicine ,AL amyloidosis ,medicine ,Humans ,Immunoglobulin Light-chain Amyloidosis ,Autografts ,Cyclophosphamide ,business.industry ,Amyloidosis ,International survey ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,Therapeutic trial ,Surgery ,Regimen ,Organ Specificity ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Organ involvement ,Patient status ,business ,Stem Cell Transplantation ,030215 immunology - Abstract
The aim of this survey was to describe the treatment decision making of expert physicians in when and how to treat patients with AL amyloidosis. Fifty amyloid expert physicians completed the survey. Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) was considered the first line therapy, if medically feasible, by 73% of the physicians. Excluding ASCT, cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone regimen was the preferred strategy by 72%. Depending on organ involvement, the goal for treatment was CR for 27–35% and very good partial response (VGPR) for 65–72%. In the absence of organ progression but rising FLC, the factors that most influenced when to reinstitute therapy included: dFLC at diagnosis (35.2%); how sick the patient was at diagnosis (24.1%); and time to FLC rise (18.5%). For patients who achieved CR after first-line, in the presence of cardiac/renal progression, 37/42% of providers would consider starting clone directed therapy without evidence of a clone. These data would imply that the current definitions of hematologic progression do not match clinical judgment, clinical experience and a comprehensive evaluation of patient status. These disparities challenge the ability to design therapeutic trials for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. A consensus statement with the definition and validation of new hematologic progression criteria is required.
- Published
- 2017